She says the movie looks dumb; you suddenly agree. She tests you with a little attitude; you apologize for nothing.
You think you're being easy to get along with. She reads something else entirely: a man with no edges. Nothing to hold on to. No friction, no tension, no reason to wonder what he really thinks.
The "22 Rules" taught me to push back — playfully, calmly, without needing her approval. Strange things happened after that.
Attraction runs on a clock.
She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.
The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."
One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.
Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near you.
This is good! :yes:KarmaSutra said:Mine's 16.
Gorgeous. Brilliant.
She's in Orlando this week for a robotics competition (she writes binary code for robots). She's in Atlanta next week for the same reason.
My kid is hip to Game. I taught her everything I could about "Players" and "Seductionists". She's caused guys to weep openly because they don't know how to Game her.
We were out at dinner and she pointed out dudes were "Peacocking". Pathetically peacocking.
Makes a Dad proud.
Your buddy Dave has been single for three years and thinks "hey u up" is a valid strategy. Your other buddy Mike just got dumped and told you to "just be yourself."
You showed them her text. You asked them to decode the emoji. You drafted four responses and sent the screenshot to the group chat for a vote.
She's been waiting forty minutes.
Put the phone down. Stop crowdsourcing your love life. Type something that sounds like you. Hit send. Then go do literally anything else with your evening.
I think KarmaSutra just wants her to be informed so she doesn't get manipulated.Chronocidal said:Just out of curiosity, how would you want or expect boys/men who are interested in her to attempt to connect with her romantosexually, if "peacocking" (i.e. differentiating oneself visually from the crowd) is considered "pathetic" and "game" (i.e. social skills for men) is something considered problematic?
There isn't much "romance" in romantosexual from a "game" standpoint. Romance is pretty much a dirty word on the DJ forum.Chronocidal said:Is making someone who is interested in romantosexual activity weep openly considered a good thing?
Zekko this is a paradox that I can certainly relate to.zekko said:Most of the guys on here are always railing against feminism. Does that mean they would raise their daughter to be a housewife? Somehow I doubt it. Guys here want sex from a girl the first night they meet them. Does that mean they would raise their daughter to give it out so freely?
She's interested in guys who are interested in, and passionate about, their future and other things than getting into her pants.Chronocidal said:Just out of curiosity, how would you want or expect boys/men who are interested in her to attempt to connect with her romantosexually, if "peacocking" (i.e. differentiating oneself visually from the crowd) is considered "pathetic" and "game" (i.e. social skills for men) is something considered problematic?
It's a good thing from a Paternal perspective. Like here, it separates the men from he-b!tches.Is making someone who is interested in romantosexual activity weep openly considered a good thing?